Mr. Speaker, today there are reports that the Liberal caucus is demanding a brand new slush fund and that some leadership hopefuls, notably the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, are backing the plan as a way of winning supporters from among the backbenches.

Under the proposed plan each MP would be given, according to reports in the Globe and Mail , “$100,000 to hand out at their whim to various groups in their riding”.

Some Liberal MPs are defending the plan by saying they can bring responsiveness to government spending, but this sounds suspiciously like an attempt to broaden to the constituency level the Liberal practice of taxing everybody and then using the money to swing key voters.

Our economy is going into recession and Canadians need respite from the endless cycle of tax and spend. The Liberal response of pouring hard earned money into what the Globe and Mail characterizes as slush funds is exactly the wrong answer.

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that Andy Shott will retire at the beginning of next year. Mr. Shott became the official photographer of the House of Commons in 1993.

With his camera he captured the great moments of parliamentarians and Canadians. Thanks to his talent we now have a rich heritage of photography. This portfolio is a superb reflection of the atmosphere that exists in parliament.

I am proud to congratulate and thank Andy Shott for the excellent work that he has done for the House, and I am sure that the House will join me to wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, the number of women missing from the downtown east side is a tragedy. Earlier this month the joint police task force released the names of 18 more women who are missing, bringing the number to 45 women. Many of them were involved in the sex trade and were at risk of the most awful violence and death.

I believe all levels of government must co-operate with all possible resources to find out what has happened to these women and to prevent more deaths and harm from taking place. SFU criminologist John Lowman has said repeatedly that women will continue to disappear and be killed unless Canada's prostitution laws are changed.

I implore the Minister of Justice to pay attention. Her bent on security in Bill C-36 did not help these women. Yet their dangerous environment is caused by federal laws pertaining to the sex trade.

These women are not pieces of garbage that can be disposed of. They are human beings with every right to dignity, safety and hope for the future. They demand our attention.

Mr. Speaker, on this December 13, the big event in Quebec is the “Grande guignolée”. Collection points have been set up everywhere to collect money and food to help the poor in our society.

The money and the food collected will be given to organizations for distribution to those in great need.

We cannot remain indifferent to poverty and to the suffering that it generates. Contributions, however small, will bring happiness to thousands of children and brighten up the living rooms of many families that, sadly, are excluded from our collective prosperity.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I add my voice to that of the patron of the “Grande guignolée”, actress Rita Lafontaine, who reminds us that “at Christmas, everyone wants to look very elegant and very sharp, but let us not forget the poor, because they are very important”.

It is so much better to give than to receive. Let us prove it by giving generously to the “Grande guignolée”. Congratulations to the generous volunteers and donors.

Mr. Speaker, as we look around the Chamber and as we go about our duties on Parliament Hill we sometimes forget to recognize the people that make all this possible. Behind the scenes are the many House of Commons staff without whom we could not operate efficiently.

They deliver our messages, greet our visitors and ensure that the Hill remains a safe place. Hill employees are devoted to their job and prove it every day through their good humour and kindness.

Before we all go home for the holidays to celebrate with our families and friends, I want to take a moment to thank all the House of Commons staff and to wish them a happy holiday and a happy new year, 2002.

Mr. Speaker, the HRDC minister has on three separate occasions provided the House with inaccurate information.

Most members of the House want the practice that ensures EI cheques will not be held up due to the holiday season to be continued. This act of generosity on behalf of the government dates back to 1971. The minister on December 7 assured the House the practice would continue.

She assured the House that as in the past employment insurance claimants will be able to make a request, make their claims in advance and receive cheques for the Christmas season.

As confirmed today by her department, the minister has backed away from this commitment. Claimants will now receive only half a cheque for the holiday season.

The minister should be forced to honour her original commitment on the floor of the House and not be the grinch.

Mr. Speaker, in 1826 the first classes of what is now the Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School were held in a log building near the river in what became Peterborough. The school moved in 1854 and again in 1859 to the old central school building. In 1909 the present magnificent building was opened.

PCVS is a downtown school that has served a varied community well. It has excelled in academics, sports, the arts and community service. Its graduates have served Canada in every possible way, including military service in all major wars and peacekeeping situations. For many years PCVS was the collegiate in Peterborough. Its staff provided the nucleus for other high schools as they were founded.

PCVS celebrates its 175th anniversary with a homecoming in May 2002. I ask all members to join me in congratulating the school on its birthday and wishing it well for the next 175 years.

Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians I was appalled to read in my morning paper that his excellency, the husband of the Governor General of Canada, has offered some strong, and in my view wrong-headed, opinions on political matters. In particular, it appears that in a forthcoming book his excellency blames in part the countries of the west, and this would of course include Canada, for the horrific acts of terrorism that took place on September 11.

Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians what steps his government has taken to disassociate the government from these comments?

Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious that these comments were made by Mr. Saul as a private citizen. He is not an extension of his spouse. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is back in the 19th century in assuming that one spouse is the extension of another spouse for their ideas. He ought to get into the 21st century and realize that Mr. Saul is speaking as a private citizen on his own behalf.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Saul is no longer a private citizen. He lives with the Governor General and represents Canada as his excellency. One particularly offensive aspect of his excellency's comments included some derogatory references to the U.S. President George Bush and President Bush's handling of the crisis in the immediate aftermath of September 11.

Has the Prime Minister written to President Bush to apologize for these insulting comments from the viceregal household?

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that my wife would not insult the president of the United States on behalf of the Government of Canada.

This is not the first time that his excellency has overstepped his role. A leading constitutional expert and former governor general have been quoted in the media confirming that this sort of foray into the political debate is excessive and bad judgment coming from the spouse of our Governor General.

Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians what steps are being taken to ensure that his excellency keeps his opinions to himself until his viceregal role is finished?

Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a formal viceregal role for the spouse of the Governor General. Mr. Saul is entitled to express his opinions as a private citizen. I wonder why the Leader of the Opposition is so ready to confirm that things are going so well that this is the only topic he can raise, not the budget, not health care, not the war in Afghanistan. I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his strong endorsement of the government.

Mr. Speaker, in October the finance minister said that Ottawa was reviewing its spending on an item by item basis to see where cuts could be made and “looking at...the lower priority areas and how...[to] fund the higher priority areas”, but on Monday the finance minister could not come up with one red cent to cut in low priority areas, not to corporate welfare, not to TV producers, not to the ways identified by the auditor general.

Why the flip-flop? How is it that he could not find one dime in savings in low priority areas? Why did he give up in his responsibility to set priorities?

Mr. Speaker, the fact is of course that the government did reallocate within each department. That is one of the reasons that we are able not only to pay for the national security package but we are able to bring in what is the largest transfer in terms of health to the provinces in the history of the country.

The fact of the matter is that the hon. member has raised, for example, the television fund. Is the hon. member saying that he is against the private sector in this country being able to tell Canadian stories to Canadians? Is that part of that party's agenda?